Hoffmann v. Corning Police Department, et al.

Filing 8

ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/17/15 ORDERING the clerk of court randomly assign this action to a district judge. U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. randomly assigned to this case. Also, RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections due within 14 days. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBIN HOFFMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-2793 DAD P

v.

ORDER AND

CORNING POLICE DEPT., et al.,

15

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his

18

complaint on December 1, 2014. The court’s own records reveal that prior to the filing of this

19

complaint, on November 20, 2014, plaintiff filed a complaint containing virtually identical

20

allegations against the same defendants. (See No. 2:14-cv-2736 MCE KJN P).1 Due to the

21

duplicative nature of the present action, the court will recommend that the complaint filed in this

22

action be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court randomly assign this action to a

23
24

district judge.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See

25
26
27
28

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
1

A court may take judicial notice of court records. See MGIC Indem. Co. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d
500, 505 (9th Cir. 1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980).
1

1

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the District Judge assigned to this

2

case pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served

3

with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court.

4

The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

5

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time

6

may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th

7

Cir. 1991).

8

Dated: March 17, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

hm
hoff2793.23

23
24
25
26
27
28
2